Playstation 4 Price and Ordering Info

A year and a half after the official release of both the Xbox One and the PS4, we've seen the Xbox One already slash it's price $50. Could the PS4 be far behind? As of February 2015, Sony has stated that NO price cut is planned for the PlayStation 4. If you want it, better get the $400 together.

To figure out the price based on hardware, we can compare it to what it would be like if someone were to build a computer with similar specifications as the console is essentially made up of computer components. We know that the PlayStation 4 will feature an AMD 8-core processor with a 1.84 TFLOPS Radeon-based graphics engine. In addition, it will sport 8 GB GDDR5 memory, a built-in hard drive and a Blu-ray/DVD drive running at 6x and 8x speed, respectively.

Let's start with the processor; AMD sells an 8-core processor on its own website for $160. It also sells the 2 TFLOPS Radeon HD 6870 for another $145, which also has 2 GB of GDDR5 memory. Though it is more powerful than the PlayStation 4 with 2 TFLOPS, it has a quarter of the memory expected for the console, so we can even out the difference in price. Hard drives for the PlayStation 3 ranged in a number of sizes, but the PS4 will come with a 500GB hard drive. This can cost anywhere between $100 and $150, depending on the brand name and speed. Finally, a Blu-ray/DVD drive for a computer would run about another $50 on average.

With these basic components, a similarly-equipped computer would cost about $450 to $505, depending on the website or store you buy each item from. This kind of price is actually within the confines of what Asahi, a well-known Japanese publication, guessed the cost of the PlayStation 4 would be.

When you look back at the PlayStation 3, which released for about $600, it makes sense that Sony would not want to repeat this mistake; with such a high price, sales suffered as gamers were too hesitant to spend such a fee on a console. $399 was a smart move on their part, that's for sure.

In terms of the lower price this time around, Sony Worldwide Studios vice president Michael Denny has been quoted as saying "We want a system that can reach as broad a gaming audience as possible. We have created a console absolutely focused on gamers – and we want that to be gamers in the broadest sense as well."

What this means is that Sony realizes the pricing mistakes it made on the PlayStation 3 by originally pricing the console not only out of reach for casual gamers but hardcore gamers as well. It's nice to see that they haven't made the same mistake twice. Another smart move on Sony's part was keeping games at the same price and not restricting the use of pre-owned games. Since the PS4 comes with a decently sized hard drive, an HDMI cable, and the controller, there won't be any required accessory purchase out of the box.

It's been over a year now since the console released and we've seen no price drops. That being said, various bundles have surfaced during the holiday season. The announcement of a 20th Anniversary PS4 has also brought a new stylized design into the fold. While Xbox has since lowered their price and made the Kinect optional, PS4 still continues to sell strong. It's all thanks to Sony's wise decision to keep the system priced at something far more reasonable than PS3's launch price.

PlayStation 4 fans, keep your eyes on not only this page, but PS4 Experts in general for up-to-date PS4 pricing news!

dude you are not going to find one cheaper,i mean im going to wait a couple months before sony releases the ps4 because it is in the $1000-$2000 range i think.I am looking in to the xbox 720 too.They both look pretty cool.

Please let me correct you.
" featuring only 256MB of XDR DRAM as the consoles main memory unit and another 254MB of GDDR3 RAM for the Nvidia RSX,"
Typo its 256 MB GDDR 3 Ram not 254 MB.
"The XDR ram itself, although at 256MB sounds to be selling you short, is actually considered to be up to 12x faster than traditional PC RAM"
True for DDR/DDR2. But speed is not the only important thing. Did you know that the GDDR3 Ram of the RSX (and the Xbox 360) is as fast as XDR. You might ask why and its understandable. I also thought XDR is a lot superior to GDDR3/X360 but thats not true. Even though it has 4-5 times higher clock rate (3200 Mhz vs 700 Mhz) It has just 64 Bit bandwith wereas GDDR 3 like the 256 MB for RSX and the 512 MB for 360 have 256 Bit Bandwith. The difference is that GDDR3 can transport 4 times more data per cycle. That means GDDR3 needs only 1 Mhz to transport the same amount of data in the same time as 4 mhz XDR so the GDDR3 is like 2800mhz XDR . In reality XDR is just 12.5% faster then GDDR3.
Also XDR is not produced anymore only for PS3. 2gb XDR2 are a couple of bucks today. 8gb DDR3 (as faster or faster as XDR2) are 40 Dollar.
"the Nvidia RSX (the unit that powers the PS3's graphic capabilities), is now 4 years old and there's plenty of other models available on the market"
The PS3 is soon 5 years old so the RSX is also almost 5 years atleast. But the RSX is older than thatunlike from you suspected " The RSX is the equivalent to the 8800GT"
Its actually based on the predecessor GPU the 7800GT and the 7800GT came in 2005 and is over 6 years old. With a 8800GT the PS3 would literally rape the dead corpse of the 360 in terms of power the 8800 GT is a legendary GPU.
"RSX is still a pretty sweet graphical option as it boasts 300+ trillion transistors, the ram clocks at 700mhz, and can produce 60 million dots per second,"
The RSX is not really a sweet graphical option anymore its still decent and as strong as the slowest GPUs from today. And that is! good. In the Past the console GPUs where obsolete after 3 years.
It also boasts 300 MILLION Transistors (typo) GTX 580 has 3000 Million+ and soon comes GTX 680 and HD 7xxxx series with a lot more than that. Ram clocks at 700mhz but maybe you should add the 256 Bit Bandwith too. Old DDR had 64 Bit
"the current price of an 8800GT is roughly $280/£180 "
No way a GTX 480 is that price (less even) a 8800GT is 100 Dollar NEW. A 7800GT is 50.
"So to sum up the possible basic cost of the Playstation 4, not including things like blue-tooth devices, or hard-drives, you can expect anything up to $700/£500."
Sorry to disagree with you you should really look how much stuff costs in production. A 1000 Dollar Ipad has parts for 300 Dollar. Bluetooth costs 1-2 Dollar maybe less. A 500 gb HDD costs maybe 10! Dollar in production. PS3 had a super advanced BR Drive and a super advanced CPU that made 50% of the real cost= 400 Dollar. Today they are maybe 100.
A DS3 costs about 5 Dollar to produce. You have to forget that the prices you pay are somehow connected to the prices the stuff actually costs.
The costs are profit margin of developer first reseller second reseller transport advertisment storage costs taxes. And consoles are the only product I know of where the developer even takes a losess thats why the Specs of consoles are cutting edge and for the price not available anywhere else. I KNOW that Sony is not going to sell a ps4 for 700 Dollar because the PS3 for 600 was a failure at launch. If they realesed for 399 without BR the 360 would be dead (and Bluray would have lost against HDDVD). They have No need to push another Format right now the PS4 will have conventional technology and be between 400-500 Dollar because it wont have to push exotic and expensive technology.

i jest hope the ps4 will be better than the xbox 720 cause the ps3 was better than the xbox 360 cause ps3 used blue ray disk and it lasted alot longer than my xbox 360 so i would take my time with the ps4 and know for a fact its better than xbox 720 before it is shipted out but i beleve they should keep the ps3 controlers jest make them look cooler like put grips on them and make the system with a 3 disk changer

I would hold out till it's cheaper.. think it's going to be a interesting next generation console war. PS4 will be out first this time and by the time the xbox 720 comes out the ps4 should be lower in price.
You goto remember that 256mb (total of 512mb w/vid memory) of ram expecially XDR is pleanty.. even for the road ahead I would think. You goto remeber the resources of your ps3 is deticated to the game.
An exsample:
PS2 was 299 MHz and 32MB RDRAM dosent seem like it should be able to run anything. Look at games like san andreas can run off that hardware hard to belive. Try to run GTA:SA on a PII 300 w/32mb ram.

THIS SITE IS B@LLSH#T SONY SAID PS3 WILL LAST FOR 10 YEARS THIS IS NOT AN OFFICIAL SONY SITE . PS4 WILL ANNOUNCED A YEAR BEFORE IT RELEASED....WILL ANNOUNCED BY SONY... NOT FROM PS4PLAYSTATION4.COM SITE ( WHICH SONY CAN CLOSE IT BUT THEY DONT CARE BECAUSE ALL THIS IS B@LLSH#T AND EVEN A MAN WITH 30 IQ WILL BE ABLE TO UNDERSTAND IT)

How can Sony close this website? For speculation? Sony will release the PS4 when Xbox release the 720, and start hogging the console sales.
This was a well written article. It's not claiming to know anything as fact, as it says, it's just looking at past evidence of what Sony have done, and what they have charged.
Lastly, does swearing make you feel big? Idiot.

FIRST of all,If you support microsoft gtfo,because all these people here(hopefully)are sony/ps3 fans.Plus,How would you know that?By the way,even you know the ps3 won't last 10 years before it dies out of style.You probably need to go back to friggin microsoft.

TThe one thing that everyone is forgetting is how big the game industry is, and how big it is going to become during 2015-17.
It's going to be an industry that will tower over anything not involving Ship Building.
Sony know this and I damn sure Microsoft are as well and the next generation gaming systems are at the same time going to mirror what they are now, and then reflect directly off of what the PC industry has been doing, only on a much bigger scale.
x86 technology is hitting the limits, that's why Core i7 [Nehalem] just hasn't been beaten. That's why when you push a CPU to 8Ghz, no one is paying any attention other than the amount of liquid nitrogen you have to carry around to achieve it and the results are disappointing. Overclocking the AMD or Intel CPU from 3.3Ghz to 4.5Ghz does virtually nothing to gaming other than to support SLI/Crossfire configurations by single digit percentage gains.
The use of silicon technology in computation has to change. The Architecture has to change.
That's why the PC as a gaming system will fade out.
I noticed in this thread a mention of XDR2 being comparable to GDDR3/5; well the one big thing they missed is that XDR2 scales by the number of modules you put together - like the Cell; as I understand it 4x512Mbx4Modules (2Gb XDR2) is capable of 500Gb/sec of memory bandwidth and we're talking lightning fast memory here - far beyond GDDR5 with the tighest timings you can possibly achieve.
If you connect the Cell2 to that, and if nVidia connects the RSX2 to that, goodbye PC gaming industry. The whole thing would be turned upside down for the first time in decades - consoles destroy PC gaming rigs permanently for at least another 10 years if the adopt their strategy of churning out old ideas by upping overclocked frequencies.
The reason there is no uptake of XDR2 is the same reason x86 has lasted this long.
It takes one basic move and the whole thing changes.

Oh and please don't use magic bullet logic to summarize a market. graphical fidelity isn't what has kept Counter Strike 1.6 afloat for 15 years... and if you believe graphical fidelity is what makes a game your sorely mistaken. Name one 4 year old console game that still has a player base of current peak today April 9, 2012 71,286 players. just the fact that they're still using disks amazes me, I haven't bought a disk in a year. I buy all my games on Digital distribution.

As long as PC architecture holds to x86 CISC, "PC gaming" will very quickly die in the next 7-10 years.
Intel will never let go of x86 CISC. They will never let go of their Server market. They will drive x86 CISC as inhumanely possible into the ground until someone puts all of their effort into Cell-type RISC compute architectures.
This isn't some kind of a "proof is in the pudding", but I have an IQ of 148. When I look at the Cell architecture, and when I look at XDR; and when I look at what could be possible if these two architectures could be in the same time-frame that x86 CISC has gone in just the last 15 years, Cell and XDR could achieve hundreds of times the power over x86 CISC in the same time period.
All you can do with x86 CISC is architect towering Server Racks. Implement building-size arrays to reach Petaflop performance.
There is something funamentally wrong with mega-watt compute performance; and it derives from the inherency and historical record of the companies behind their implementation.
The Architects and Engineers think that many, many x86 CISC in thousand-fold arrays is the future - it is, if your government doesn't provide you with the funds to do otherwise. It is, if you simply aren't thinking differently.
Intel is followed as religiously as the zealots that think AMD are doing it differently enough from Intel that Bulldozer and APU has a greater impact in the mobile market.
If it really is about power/per/watt/performance, then why approach its directly enforced capacity of changing how x86 CISC has self-architected itself? Why go a quarter way to Cell-type designs, but never step into its blinding light.
All that's happening here is that x86 CISC has nowhere to go. AMD's answer was Bulldozer; now it's APU. Intel's is incrementally poor useage of Nehalem and HyerThreading. HyperThreading? How on earth did HyperThreading make it compute performance figures that actually did any good for anyone.
If there is one Manufacturer that proves all of them is wrong in the next 7-10 years, it's nVidia and IBM. Intel and AMD are going in a "straight line for linear progress, and selfish gain". They're not competing against each other. They're competing against x86 CISC.
Why no one sees this is beyond me, and I am not the smartest person in the world; I know this is just Intel and AMD crushing progress and efficiency in Silicon because they're no better than the rest of the corporations in the world; they're not setting a better standard - not "a standard", for out time.
Intel, if anything, are heading backward in time - and they do this whenever they have all of their "customers in the bag".
AMD are trying it too... Bulldozer/APU.
Just tell me how many of you use the term "Bulldozer" over the term "HyperThreading" to describe the power of your PC.
And yet they're both an equivalent to the next 30 years of x86 CISC.
IBM at one time in the past had a Cell design that operated at 1.15v/65nm and 6Ghz; it's performance was never disclosed fully - but there are completely safe conclusions to come to that would describe a 300 Gigaflop Cell at 65nm in late 2007 (announced in early 2008) that would completely destroy the most powerful Intel x86 CISC CPU in 2012 3-fold; an order of magnitude that would stagger the x86 CISC industry to the ground.
Why has Cell not resurfaced. Why did IBM stop, start, and end that progress.
It's simple.
When you produce something that takes you to the Moon, and you don't have a space suit, the problem is that your customers probably don't like space suits.
What you produce means nothing if you're wearing the wrong clothes.

No one uses "dots" to determine GPU power, and those that do are Marketing Executives looking for large numbers before they open their mouths to cover up the smaller numbers it really has.
The RSX is a fraction of the power of a 8800GT.
The author of this article sounds like one of those Marketing Executives Sony has in 2005 -- "Dispicable Shit Heads".

If the ps4 is to much money then there sales won't be as good as Xbox parents of kids are don't going to pay over priced items. You could see alot sales on the true ps fan. So Sony needs to keep the price right to stay in the market for those big sales.

sorry for any spell errors ps4 dont need to include any games ,only need to be ps3 compatable ,fast loading games, and everything the ps3 has but better,because my ps3 its the first 2006 ,so i now the tecnology its way better now come on its been 6 years and the price its realy important,spesialy if want to be number 1 bething the xbox,wii,thanks....INPUT77 psn

That's right! The president of Sony, President Shuhei Yoshida, did announce this year that the PS3 was designed to have a 10 year shelf life. Now, anything could change the release of the PS4 (like a new XBox or something) and might force Sony's hand into releasing it sooner, but Sony did state the 10 year comment when asked about the PS4 release. Gamer's are just excited by anything that even remotely hints that the PS4 might come out sooner. To add to this excitement, leaks about some game making companies already working on PS4 games, has convinced a lot of gamers that the release date is near. However, the makers of game consoles always release the specs and other confidential device information to the game making companies years in advance compared to the actual release date of the consoles. They do this simply because they would like to be able to have a wide game choice selection when the console drops. I would love for them to drop it this year too, but even though I'm a dedicated PS lover, that predicted $700-$1000 price tag, has me looking for a much more affordable alternative! Look out XBox, here I come!!! lol

ps3 vs xbox
i dont get the fight i have both ps3 and xbox360 ps3 will last 10 years sony will show off the ps3 at e3 this last and it will most likly come out next year around cmas xbox next system will not be a big selling because there ur pushing the kincet to far the gamer like to have a conroller in his/ her hands and went you do not have a conroller in ur hands its lame tht were ps4 will win the system wars
(" GAMER 4 Life ") xxptkxx out
youtube.com/xxnoobcakexx1

is there gonna ' be something like the Yellow Light of Death ? because if iHave to pay over 500 dollars for something that will break after it gets a lil dust inside , iRather go buy the biggest dog i can fine . and sit back o my computer and watch X-Box take over . and if ' Psn gets hacked and you can't play online ?! not worth it .

Lets be honest,the ps1 groundbreaking,then all others come after have been excellent and have not let me down in anyway,really looking forward to the release of the ps4! its going to be mindblowingly good i sure and wont let any ones expectations down,only people that like to have a damn good moan will do,x box lovers and critics he he but after six years 500 to 600 pound for a new toy is pricey but i think worth it,no one moans how much they spend on a car once every two to three years eh he he......come on sony,hurry up......

If PS4 has really good high tech systems, i may pay $500, but that's it. With the poor economy and people getting laid off, i think over $500 is going way too far. If they do make it over $500, i hope they do not have good sales. I really wish PS4 would have a kinect like XBOX 360 or something similar.

yep kinnect makes move look like a poor mans wii lol and ps move just looks terrible an the game line up is lame not anti ps3 but move sucked period i took it back after 2 days were as i still own kinnect

fair cop but come on kinect is better than move lets be real here, wish Sony could of up the ante with move but they didn't instead we was left with a mutated wii controler with a glowing ball lol oh well heres to hope to the future